Binyam Mohamed

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (David Miliband) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On Friday 16 October, the High Court handed down its fifth judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case. We are deeply disappointed by the judgment, which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material, prepared by the judges, should be put into the public domain against the clear and express wishes of the United States. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms.
	Since we secured the release of the material at issue to Mr Mohamed's lawyers by the US Government last October, for use in his defence before the US military commission, the only remaining issue for the court was whether it should order public disclosure of seven summary paragraphs of intelligence material received from the US about his treatment while in Pakistan in 2002.
	The court in its fourth judgment, handed down on 4 February, acknowledged my assessment, made after careful consideration of the US position, and considered advice from our intelligence agencies and other senior UK officials that making the seven paragraphs public against the wishes of the US would cause harm to our national security.
	On 23 February, we succeeded in ensuring Mr Mohamed's release from Guantanamo and his return to the UK, following strenuous efforts by the Government over the course of 18 months. The court, throughout its judgments, has noted the "considerable efforts" made in this regard.
	The court subsequently reopened its fourth judgment on 6 May on the basis that it did not know whether the position of the Obama Administration regarding disclosure was the same as the Bush Administration's position, on which it had based its judgment. While there was indeed a new President and a new Administration in the US, my assessment of the risk to UK national security remained the same: that disclosure by a UK court of a summary of US intelligence material will harm our national security. This assessment was again informed by correspondence from the Obama Administration—from both the CIA and the White House—as well as by my own discussions of this matter with Secretary of State Clinton. In making this assessment I was again carefully advised by our intelligence agencies and other senior UK officials who are familiar with intelligence matters.
	The conclusions reached in Friday's judgment were based on the premise that the principle of control of intelligence is not absolute. However, the principle is at the heart of all intelligence relationships: intelligence material communicated in confidence must be protected and cannot be released without the consent of the owner. However, we only share British intelligence with other countries on the basis that they will not disclose it without our express permission. The same inviolable principle applies to foreign intelligence shared with us. If this principle is undermined, the sharing of intelligence will most certainly be hindered. At a time when the UK faces a serious threat from international terrorism, the Government will not take risks with intelligence that is essential to national security and shared with us by many states.
	The court found that there was insufficient evidence to amount to a real risk that the US would reassess or reduce its intelligence-sharing relationship with the UK because there was no "explicit statement of consequences [of disclosure by the Court] by the Obama Administration". In my judgment, the comments of the Obama Administration, now made public, from the CIA, the President's National Security Adviser, and Secretary Clinton, show this not to be the case, and certainly not a risk worth taking. The seriousness of the Obama Administration's determination to uphold the principle of control which underpins decades of intelligence sharing between our two countries is there for all to see in the records of successive correspondence from and discussions with senior figures in the Obama Administration. In the Government's view, the court has failed to accord proper weight to these factors or this assessment. On such a fundamental issue, it is right and proper that we appeal its judgment.
	Honourable Members will be aware that, in the course of this case, Mr Mohamed made extremely serious allegations about his mistreatment while in detention. We have been completely clear on this issue: the British Government stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; we do not condone, collude with, encourage or solicit it. We take all allegations of wrongdoing very seriously. Allegations that British officials were mixed up in wrongdoing in this case are now properly being investigated by the police. Mr Mohamed is also bringing a separate legal claim for damages against the Government. This will be addressed by the courts in due course.
	In this case, however, the fundamental question at issue is not the mistreatment allegations made by Mr Mohamed. It is about the principle underpinning intelligence-sharing and the assessment of the risks to the United Kingdom's national security that would follow from a breach of this principle. Though I have no objection to the material becoming public, and have made this clear throughout, it is for the US to release its own material, not the UK.
	I am determined that the vigour with which we fight this case will maintain the confidence of and send a clear message to all our intelligence partners across the world: the United Kingdom will protect the information that you share with us and uphold the principle that it is for you, not us or our courts, to decide if and when to release such material into the public domain.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On Friday 16 October the European Commission's Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health (SCOFCAH) agreed to provide up to €10 million of EU funding to support the UK's Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) Eradication Programme for 2010. Its decision to provide financial support to the UK is welcome assistance to our efforts to tackle this worrying, complex and costly disease.
	The UK eradication plan, submitted to the European Commission on 15 September, sets out the planned programme of TB surveillance, control and eradication for England, Wales and Northern Ireland during 2010 (Scotland is not required to submit a plan, having achieved officially TB-free status). The EU funding can be used to offset the costs of TB testing and compensation for cattle slaughtered within this programme. Defra will work with the Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland to agree how this funding will be shared.
	I would like to take this opportunity also to acknowledge the excellent work of the TB Eradication Group for England, whose recommendations on strengthening the eradication programme in England helped ensure the approval of the UK's plan. The group's first report has recently been published and I am placing copies in the Libraries of the House.

Correction to Commons Written Answer

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (David Kidney) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I would like to inform the House that a Written Answer I gave on 12 October 2009 (Official Report, col. 486W) to the honourable Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford was incorrect. The honourable Member's Question tabled on 2 September 2009 asked what representations were made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change concerning the power cut at Dartford Creek on 20 July.
	In my Written Answer I said there had been no representations but my right honourable friend had in fact received letters from the honourable Member for North Thanet dated 28 September 2009, and the honourable Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and my honourable friend the Member for Dartford dated 3 August 2009. Regrettably, these letters were not taken into account due to an administrative error within my department when compiling the Answer. I can confirm that my officials are reviewing the handling procedures for dealing with parliamentary correspondence to ensure that this does not happen again.
	I apologise to the House and the three honourable Members for this error.

Electromagnetic Fields

Baroness Thornton: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Gillian Merron), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am making this Statement on behalf of myself and my honourable friends the Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Ian Austin).
	Today we have placed in the Library the government response to the Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields's(SAGE) First Interim Assessment: Power Lines and Property, Wiring in Homes and Electrical Equipment in Homes,published in 2007. SAGE is a group of stakeholders representing sectors engaged with electricity transmission, regulation, property valuation, academic research and public-concern campaigning. The remit of SAGE is to explore the implications for a precautionary approach to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMF) and to make practical recommendations to Government. This first assessment considered two sources of EMF: high-voltage overhead power lines and electrical wiring and equipment inside the home. SAGE is jointly funded by the Department of Health, the National Grid Company, the Energy Networks Association and the charity Children with Leukaemia.
	SAGE made recommendations for relatively low-cost and proportionate action in four key areas. The Government have decided to take forward these measures proposed by SAGE on:
	optimal phasing of high-voltage overhead power lines;
	electrical appliances in homes;
	household wiring practices; and
	the provision of advice to the public on ELF EMF.
	SAGE also put forward an option to introduce a moratorium on building new homes and schools near high-voltage power lines and new high-voltage power lines near homes and schools. However, SAGE's cost-benefit analysis does not support this option. The Government therefore consider this option to be disproportionate given the evidence base on the potential health risks arising from exposure to ELF EMF and have no plans to take it forward.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government will take forward recommendations relating to planning, buildings and house wiring. The Department of Energy and Climate Change will take forward recommendations on high-voltage electricity transmission. The Department of Health will take forward provision of health protection information about electromagnetic fields and support of health risk research.
	Copies of the Government's response are available to honourable Members from the Vote Office.

Ethiopia

Lord Brett: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.
	Twenty-five years after the famine in Ethiopia that killed over a million people, there is once again a growing drought and conflict-related humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa.
	Ethiopia accounts for the highest proportion of the humanitarian caseload in the region, with over 6 million people needing emergency assistance until the end of 2009. A third of these people live in the Somali region of Ethiopia. UNICEF estimates that there are currently over 500,000 acutely malnourished children in Ethiopia. A further 7.5 million vulnerable Ethiopians receive food and cash transfers under a Productive Safety Net Programme.
	The humanitarian outlook for 2010 is very worrying. The current humanitarian crisis could tip over into a humanitarian catastrophe. The prospects for the main harvest in November, which accounts for 90 per cent of Ethiopia's annual food production, are a particular cause for concern. The late arrival of the rains and prolonged dry spells mean that the harvest is likely to be below average at best, with total crop failure a possibility in some parts of the country. A mid-season assessment is currently under way, and will provide a clearer picture of likely humanitarian needs into 2010.
	I recently announced an additional, immediate £30 million of emergency aid for Ethiopia, to help make sure that there is sufficient food for those who need it. This additional finance takes the total emergency aid provided by DfID in Ethiopia this year to £49 million, making the UK the second largest bilateral humanitarian contributor after the US.
	The additional £30 million included £15 million for the UN World Food Programme to ensure that 3.4 million people receive food rations in October, and £3 million for UNICEF to pay for the treatment of up to 40,000 children with acute malnutrition. Through a common humanitarian fund, we are also providing funds for NGOs to provide life-saving nutrition, water and sanitation.
	Alongside this emergency support, we are continuing to finance the Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP), which aims to protect and build the assets of vulnerable people and reduce their dependency on food aid in the medium term. So far in 2009, we have contributed £35 million to the PSNP.
	If the forthcoming main harvest does fail, significant scaling-up efforts by the Government of Ethiopia and the international community will be needed to prevent the current crisis becoming a catastrophe in 2010. We continue to encourage the Government of Ethiopia to: publish updated humanitarian requirements as quickly as possible following each assessment; acknowledge the size and scope of the crisis; initiate contingency planning for 2010 as soon as the outlook is known; and facilitate access for all humanitarian actors, particularly in the Somali region, where humanitarian delivery is complicated by a long-running insurgency.
	In recent months, the UK has stepped up its advocacy among international partners, urging them to contribute additional resources in sufficient time to avoid gaps in the humanitarian pipeline. In Ethiopia, DfID continues to monitor the situation on the ground, and is leading efforts to improve the effectiveness of the response and secure better and faster access for UN agencies and NGOs to affected areas.

Influenza Pandemic

Baroness Thornton: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Gillian Merron), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government's response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on pandemic influenza has today been laid before Parliament (Cm 7722).
	The committee's report was published on 28 July of this year. The report highlights a range of issues relating to pandemic influenza planning in general and to the Government's response to the current swine flu pandemic. The report focuses on:
	"end-to-end" testing of planning, particularly in the NHS;the design and capacity of the National Pandemic Flu Service;critical care capacity in the NHS;support for health and social care workers during a pandemic;communications to the public and healthcare workers; andvaccine supply and distribution.
	The government response addresses the points raised by the committee individually, setting out the work and planning undertaken prior to the outbreak of swine flu and the reasoning behind the various stages of the response to the pandemic.
	Our response clearly demonstrates that United Kingdom planning prior to the swine flu pandemic made the UK one of the best prepared countries in the world, a fact widely recognised in the international community. With one of the largest stockpiles of antivirals in the world and every NHS organisation with a pandemic contingency plan in place, we were in a very strong position to face the threat of swine flu when it emerged earlier this year.
	Our response to the committee's report also testifies to the tremendous work that has been done since the outbreak of swine flu—at the front line and behind the scenes—in trying to limit the spread of the initial wave of infection and in preparing ourselves for a second wave this autumn or winter. On behalf of the Government, I would like to thank all those involved in helping to mitigate our worst fears, which a pandemic inevitably brings.
	The staff of the National Health Service, Health Protection Agency, devolved Administrations and government departments, in collaboration with those from many other organisations, responded tremendously to a very difficult situation. We were able to limit the spread of the virus from the initial cases entering the UK and cope with very significant levels of infection in some areas during the initial wave.
	We now have further stockpiles of antivirals and antibiotics and we have tested the resilience of NHS planning in exercise peak practice. We are also beginning to receive the first batches of a new swine flu vaccine, which will be given initially to those most at risk and to health and social care workers, in order to minimise the potential harm that the virus could still cause. This is a very significant development and one that the Government greatly welcome.
	I would like to take this opportunity to express the Government's thanks to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee for its work on this subject. Scrutiny by such a distinguished group of experts has been a valuable part of the development of our policy.

Schools: Acoustics

Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Schools and Learners (Vernon Coaker) made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Good acoustics are essential to a successful learning environment for all children, particularly for those with special hearing requirements, and my department works hard to achieve this, in partnership with other government departments such as Communities and Local Government (CLG) and with the National Deaf Children's Society (NDCS). I should place on record my appreciation to the NDCS for its commitment to breaking down the barriers faced by deaf children.
	To continue our drive for improvement, I am announcing a package of measures designed to ensure that school buildings have good acoustics and that the needs of those with special hearing requirements are met.
	My department and Communities and Local Government (CLG) are taking a number of actions to improve acoustics in schools. These include:
	Partnerships For Schools (PFS) will ensure, through the approvals process, that all future funding for Building Schools for the Future (BSF) schools will not be approved without contractual commitment to meeting appropriate standards through acoustic test certification;in local authorities where schools have already been constructed with BSF funding, a certificate of compliance with acoustic standards for the most recently funded school, or plan demonstrating how that will be achieved, will be required before further funding is released to that LA; my department will publish a design practice note for clients by December 2010, emphasising the importance of good acoustics, including a strong recommendation for testing and reminding them of funding conditions under the BSF programme that I set out earlier in this Statement;my department and CLG will write jointly to every building control body (BCB) in England and Wales, reminding them of the importance of acoustics in all schools, including primary schools, especially for pupils with impaired hearing. We will also remind building control bodies that where acoustic testing is being carried out to satisfy requirements to secure funding, they should use these data to assess compliance with the regulations; andwhere proposals are being considered to adopt alternative performance standards to those set out in Building Bulletin 93, we will also ask BCBs to alert applicants to the latest guidance on acoustics and ask them not to approve alternative performance standards unless a full and proper case has been made in accordance with Building Bulletin 93.
	In addition, my department will:
	produce an evaluation of the acoustic environment of up to 10 schools and disseminate the lessons learnt by March 2010;widen the scope of our Space for Personalised Learning project to include a detailed consideration of acoustics in innovative learning spaces with immediate effect; andgo out to public consultation during 2010 on an updated version of Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design of Schools: A Design Guide, the key document for ensuring good acoustic standards in schools. This will take on board improvements already proposed following extensive stakeholder consultation, as well as any findings from the investigatory work we will carry out.
	CLG is due to commence an evaluation of Part E of the building regulations later this year. This is the first stage of a full review of Part E that could lead to revised regulations and guidance in 2013. The NDCS will be asked to contribute to this process and my department will be fully involved on any aspects relating to schools to ensure consistency with my department's guidance.
	Finally, in the light of the major study that the NDCS has undertaken into recent testing in schools, I have asked DCSF officials to work with CLG officials to examine the implications of introducing mandatory acoustic testing in all new schools. I have asked for this advice by June 2010. Depending on the outcome of this work, it would be our intention to issue a formal consultation on the question of mandatory testing.
	My officials will place details of these proposals on Teachernet.